Article Tools

Mirroring an endeavor it cut off in 2008, Santa Barbara County is once again eyeing a potential tax on crude-oil production in an effort to generate what is expected to be millions of dollars in annual revenue. The tax, which county staff estimates could bring in between $1.8 million and $3.3 million a year, would have to go to the voters for approval, however. If it does make it on the ballot, it wouldn’t be until November 2012.

The Board of Supervisors was presented with the idea Tuesday in the context of the county’s deep budgetary issues during the last few years. Dennis Bozanich from the County Executive Officer’s office outlined many of the recent financial struggles, noting last year’s $72-million deficit and how the supervisors have unfunded 600 county government positions since 2007-2008.

It was in 2008 that the county considered placing a similar tax on the ballot, with the supervisors eventually deciding against it because Measure A — a transportation sales tax on the verge of ending — was also going on the ballot.

There’s still plenty of time — the county has until July 5 to figure out whether to place the item on the ballot — but still plenty to be worked out. Complicating things is outright opposition from groups like the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), an organization that represents hundreds of oil and natural-gas producers in the state.

Blair Knox, the director of public affairs for CIPA, said difficult times are ahead for the proposal if the board decides to move forward. “CIPA has a perfect record of defeating every severance tax we’ve opposed over the last 10 years,” he said. “CIPA has a strong campaign team in place and resources to contest the tax initiative.”

And then there is a potential statewide proposition that would impose a 15-percent tax on the value of each barrel of oil extracted, with the revenue going to fund education. For that to make the ballot, 700,000 signatures must be submitted, and those signatures are currently being reviewed. In 2006, county residents — falling in step with voters statewide — rejected Proposition 87, an initiative that would have created a tax on oil extracted in California. Non-oil-related tax measures are being considered in the cities of Santa Maria and Carpinteria, as well, which could have an impact on citizens in those communities voting to approve a countywide measure.

While there is strong opposition to the tax in general, there was particular resistance to the county spending money to survey the public to gauge interest, a move the five supervisors decided against on Tuesday. Polling has already been done by the Santa Barbara Taxpayers Association, which hired a Washington, D.C., firm to survey 500 likely voters. The poll showed 45 percent of people would support an oil tax that would go toward the county’s General Fund. Such a tax would only need 50 percent plus one vote to win.

When given options for specific programs, that threshold increases to 66 percent of the vote plus one. Of potential voters, 59 percent said they would support the tax if it went toward schools, while 50 percent would support it going to firefighters, and only 37 percent favored funding a new jail.

Some people opposed to the measure said property tax values could go down as a result of a tax on oil still in the ground. That, in turn, could have an effect on funding for schools and special districts, which receive a lot of their money from property tax. But Auditor-Controller Bob Geis questioned whether that was true. Additionally, Bozanich noted that out of a total property tax roll of roughly $662 million in total assessed value, those properties associated with oil and gas production make up $12.1 million, or only 1.8 percent, of the roll. Roughly half of that amount is in just two facilities.

Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center, cautioned that, while the environmental community understands the need for the county to increase revenue, doing so in the oil industry could encourage and incentivize increased production. She asked the supervisors to look at a tax that would only apply to existing oil production.

Others, however, like Joe Armendariz, executive director of the Taxpayers Association and a Carpinteria city councilmember, think the oil industry is already over-taxed and that the measure won’t fly with voters. “The bottom line is this proposal is a loser,” he said.

But the supervisors, on a split vote (with Steve Lavagnino and Joni Gray dissenting), decided to move forward and have county staff gather more specifics on what a tax measure would mean for the county, with the hope that such a tax would open up revenue to restore services to the public. “This is an item I believe our county is ready to talk about seriously,” said 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf, who, along with the board majority, said this was but one way to potentially generate revenue for the county.

More like this story

Comments

Fire the people who thought this up and cut the personal.Discipline is the answer and lots of it. To discipline means to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct or order. In the field of child development, discipline refers to methods of modeling character and of teaching self-control and acceptable behavior,[1] for example, teaching a child to wash her/his hands before meals. Here, washing hands before meals is a particular pattern of behavior, and the child is being disciplined to adopt that pattern. To discipline also gives rise to the word disciplinarian, which denotes a person who enforces order.

"Without discipline there is nothing to be proud of". Richard L Kempe.

So, if it doesn't go on the ballot until Nov 2012, they still have to figure out how to make up an estimated $17 to $20 million shortfall to start the 12/13 budget. The County does need new revenues, but let's elect a Board Majority in 2012 that would be smarter in how to possibly use these funds. This majority has shown for 4 years it is fiscally incompetent. And don't slam me about "well, no one saw the crash coming....." by then, it was well underway with County Fiscal staff telling them this exact scenario we are in and they chose to do nothing. This is fact and public record. Go back and see budget hearing for last 4 years.

Not sure if people are aware, but Alaska which produces nearly the same amount of oil as California gets about 50% of the profit per barrel of oil, leaving the corporations with about 30% profit, and the Feds with about 20%. This means that when the price of oil hovers around $100, the state of Alaska gets $50 per barrel. This is how every Alaska resident (including children) receives a check from the state every year averaging about $1000, not to mention the fact that the taxes pay into the Alaska Permanent Fund which currently has a surplus of 40 billion dollars. Yes, a surplus of 40 billion (9 zeros).

Alaska is a blighted state requiring extended accommodation from it's reserves in order to sustain. Alaska is not a prime location for agriculture, industrial development, or even much in the way of prime tourist destination where weather conditions are trecherous most of the year. With the Alaska rationale, one might as well take cues from other blighted regions as well, like Nevada, and provide for gambling.

The American consumer doesn't need to be taxed further, from oil or otherwise, in order to support public payroll and excessive pensions that deplete - as well as compete - against the private sector toward achieving something like FHA's, or contribute to the inflated values in the housing market.

As far as education is concerned, the local DA has proposed recently on imposing an additional half a million dollars under the General Fund to solve "truency" for example.. that would enforce kids to remain in school.

However, the public school system is riddled with reasons to be truent from.. school yard harrassments, drugs and gangs, terrible quality of education and instruction; where most recently even a porn star called "Sasha Grey" was assigned to read with our children under this imposed, mandatory climate within the public educational system.

Many of our kids have to take a number in line behind undocumented illegal aliens as well - for which school districts get reimbursement with each of their illegal attendances, from Sacramento.

Kids are better off getting their instruction off the web at a fraction of the cost rather than merely be props for faculty, staff, and administrator's careers and personal livelihoods - that merely serve to the child's detriment.

All this taxation leverages bigger government and more oppression against the US class citizen.

Already, the County squanders extraordinary amount of monies for pet programs; and the level of chronic corruption that exists need to be checked.

Giving more tax money to the County franchise is like giving more smack to a heroin junky - and this has got to stop.

These taxpayer type associations have been discredited and are pretty much run by conservative think tanks that provide talking points that the gullible want to believe.

Pie in the sky claims that 'growth,' the economic model that everyone just loves loves loves, will provide government coffers with all the monies needed to build infrastructure, repair and rebuild old infrastructure. If we're not going to tax the oil industry then lets just tax the top 1 % 60% for the first 70 years of life.

From the moment a ne're do well Koch brother type is born, or inherits their daddys' fortune, they should be taxed heavily and have to make it in this tough world just like the 99%.

@ Don McDermott: your analysis about the 1% sounds strangely Bolshevik - creating the perception of a scapegoat syndrome while deflecting against the real issues.

Here's a fact for you; votes in precincts were reported online by Sacramento Wednesday, November 3, 2010 that said to have received 100% of the ballots cast, to represent the local area region of Santa Barbara.

However, 35,000 votes were again reported not to have yet been counted by the following Friday, November 5.

Yet again, winners were already declared (except for only the Attorney General slot, previously held by Jerry Brown), before that Friday following the election.

Is this the infrastructure you're hoping to sustain against the tax base?

Do you think taxing the so-called "99%" at the gas pump is going to solve your hatred against the wealthy class?

At least we would get something for our taxes, rather than tax cuts for the top 2%. Again I'd prefer it was the top 1 or 2%, like it was when the U.S.A first built these amenities, 60 years ago. Everyone did well.